Sunday, December 20, 2009

Rant: Since when is pet ownership a "right"?

City and County of San FranciscoImage via Wikipedia
San Francisco City Council wants to pass a resolution making it ILLEGAL for landlords to specify "no pets" in San Francisco. Another typical SF Madness resolution.
The main reason that this is being brought up was that the tenants are being forced to "downsize" their rentals, and the new rentals don't take pets, thus, the shelters are overwhelmed, and lots of pets are "put to sleep". And apparently, this is anathema to some of the SF Animal Care and Control Commission members.

Frankly, this is backwards reasoning. In this economy, people can't afford both pets AND a nice place. The lack of "pet friendly" rental is just an excuse. The REAL TRUTH is people can no longer afford mortgages, and have to rent. If they own their own house, they can have pets with no restrictions. If they rent, they have restrictions. That's something they have to live with. If they want pet ownership right, they need to own their own house.

Do you put bumper stickers on rental cars? Of course not. When you "rent" or "lease", your rights toward that property is naturally more limited than if you owned it. Basically, you accept whatever the landlord says... unless you are discriminated against.

What exactly is a pet? Clearly, it means more than cat or dog... So where do you draw the line? Mouse? Hamsters and gerbils? Lizards like iguanas and dragons and such? Chameleons? Snakes? How long? How about horses, pigs, birds, and others? How big or small? Insects? If you include one, are you going down a slippery slope toward anything? How about a "human pet"?

Then since when is pet ownership a "right"? Pet is a LUXURY, like wine, jewelry, bling bling, and such. It's a PRIVILEGE! There is no such thing as "right to companionship" either. So this whole thing is a joke.

Artificially increasing the so-called "pet-friendly" rentals will cause a severe backlash against the city government.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Rant: Occupation of buildings as protest?

University of California, Berkeley Graduate Sc...Image via Wikipedia
A bunch of students have taken over several University of California campus buildings at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz, as well as other campuses. The students are "outraged" by the increase in fees, to over 10000, roughly 32%. So what exact did these student "protest" this lack of funds? By causing massive police presence, occupying buildings, forcing police to break in, trespassing, and destroying rooms and general vandalizing. They were finally evicted by police, charged with various misdemeanors and infractions in some cases.

Their protests actually COST the university system more money.

They claim they are expressing their outrage over the fee increase, but they are actually contributing to the problem by causing general mayhem, thus causing the school to lose even MORE MONEY.

Also, if the classes would be cut due to lack of funds, wouldn't you want to get your money's worth NOW, instead of cutting class and join this "protest" that actually costs the schools MORE money?

So in other words, it's like protesting lack of civil rights by beating up African-American people.

Tell me how is that logical?

What's more, a bunch of yahoos then messed up the UC Chanceller's RESIDENCE building, and vandalized the entire front porch, plus throwing a TORCH at it, essentially trying to firebomb it! That's completely OUTRAGEOUS! These are ****ing terrorists, not student activists!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]